Pediatric Enterococcal Bacteremia: A 12-Year Retrospective Study in a French Pediatric Center

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Enterococcal bloodstream infections (EBSIs) are rare infections in children associated with 5%-10% of mortality in previous studies. The recent evolution of antimicrobial resistance and therapies require updated data. METHODS: We conducted an observational retrospective study between January 2008 and December 2019 describing the characteristics of children with EBSI in a French pediatric hospital. All positive Enterococcus spp. blood cultures associated with sepsis symptoms were analyzed. We also compared characteristics of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and community-acquired infections (CAIs) and described antimicrobial resistance evolution during this period. RESULTS: In total 74 EBSI were included. Enterococcus faecalis was the most common pathogen (n = 60/74, 81%) followed by Enterococcus faecium (n = 18, 24%), including 4 enterococcal coinfections. EBSIs were mainly associated with central-line associated infection (38%), surgical site infection (14%) or urinary tract infection (11%). An underlying disease was present in 95.9%. However, 4 patients died in the month following the EBSI resulting in a 5.4%, 30-day mortality. All were HAI. HAI (84% of EBSI) was associated with longer bacteremia [31% persistent bacteremia (more than 3 days) versus 0% for CAI; P = 0.029] and more antimicrobial resistance. Amoxicillin resistance is increasing since 2013 in E. faecium (63% in 2013-2019), although high-level gentamicin resistance is stable (19%). Only 1 EBSI due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus was described in our cohort, who died. CONCLUSIONS: EBSIs are rare infections in children mostly described in children with underlying disease. Healthcare-associated bacteremia is associated with higher rates of resistance and poorer prognosis, requiring the involvement of pediatric infectious disease specialists to improve management.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.